(a) Introduction. This section sets forth certain rules that are common to the calculation of constructed value and the cost of production. (See section 773(f) of the Act.)
(b) Determination of value under the major input rule. For purposes of section 773(f)(3) of the Act, the Secretary normally will determine the value of a major input purchased from an affiliated person based on the higher of:
(1) The price paid by the exporter or producer to the affiliated person for the major input;
(2) The amount usually reflected in sales of the major input in the market under consideration; or
(3) The cost to the affiliated person of producing the major input.
(c) Allocation of costs. In determining the appropriate method for allocating costs among products, the Secretary may take into account production quantities, relative sales values, and other quantitative and qualitative factors associated with the manufacture and sale of the subject merchandise and the foreign like product.
(d) Startup costs. (1) In identifying startup operations under section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act:
(i) “New production facilities” includes the substantially complete retooling of an existing plant. Substantially complete retooling involves the replacement of nearly all production machinery or the equivalent rebuilding of existing machinery.
(ii) A “new product” is one requiring substantial additional investment, including products which, though sold under an existing nameplate, involve the complete revamping or redesign of the product. Routine model year changes will not be considered a new product.
(iii) Mere improvements to existing products or ongoing improvements to existing facilities will not be considered startup operations.
(iv) An expansion of the capacity of an existing production line will not qualify as a startup operation unless the expansion constitutes such a major undertaking that it requires the construction of a new facility and results in a depression of production levels due to technical factors associated with the initial phase of commercial production of the expanded facilities.
(2) In identifying the end of the startup period under clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 773(f)(1)(C) of the Act:
(i) The attainment of peak production levels will not be the standard for identifying the end of the startup period, because the startup period may end well before a company achieves optimum capacity utilization.
(ii) The startup period will not be extended to cover improvements and cost reductions that may occur over the entire life cycle of a product.
(3) In determining when a producer reaches commercial production levels under section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act:
(i) The Secretary will consider the actual production experience of the merchandise in question, measuring production on the basis of units processed.
(ii) To the extent necessary, the Secretary will examine factors in addition to those specified in section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, including historical data reflecting the same producer's or other producers' experiences in producing the same or similar products. A producer's projections of future volume or cost will be accorded little weight.
(4) In making an adjustment for startup operations under section 773(f)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act:
(i) The Secretary will determine the duration of the startup period on a case-by-case basis.
(ii) The difference between actual costs and the costs of production calculated for startup costs will be amortized over a reasonable period of time subsequent to the startup period over the life of the product or machinery, as appropriate.
(iii) The Secretary will consider unit production costs to be items such as depreciation of equipment and plant, labor costs, insurance, rent and lease expenses, material costs, and factory overhead. The Secretary will not consider sales expenses, such as advertising costs, or other general and administrative or non-production costs (such as general research and development costs), as startup costs.
Notes of Decisions
Skf USA Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “; see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 (b). Again, SKF argues, this provision demonstrates that transaction prices between unaffiliated parties are generally sufficient proxies for cost.”
Torrington Co. v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 2d 845 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
· cites it 3× “For purposes of § 1677b(f)(3), regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 (b) (1998) provides that Commerce will value a major input supplied by an affiliated party based on the highest of (1) the actual transfer price for the input; (2) the market value of the input; or (3) the COP of the…”
Husteel Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 100 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
· cites it 4× “19 C.F.R. § 351.407 (b) (2014). Here, Commerce calculated the market price using the weighted average of POSCO’s sales to all of its unaffiliated customers.”
Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
· cites it 3× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 (b). Accordingly, Commerce compared VAL’s cost of production to the transfer price charged by VAL for the steel billets and determined that the transfer price exceeded the cost of production.”
Nsk Ltd. v. United States, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
· cites it 3× “For purposes of § 1677b(f)(3), regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 (b) (1998) provides that Commerce will value a major input supplied by an affiliated party based on the highest of (1) the actual transfer price for the input; (2) the market value of the input; or (3) the COP of the…”
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
· cites it 2× “In addition, [ 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 (1998) provides that] the value of a major input purchased from an affiliated person will be based on the higher of: (1) the price paid by the exporter or producer to the affiliated person for the major input; (2) the amount usually reflected…”
NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
· cites it 2× “For purposes of § 1677b(f)(3), regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 (b) (1998) provides that Commerce will value a major input supplied by an affiliated party based on the highest of (1) the actual transfer price for the input, (2) the market value of the input, or (3) the COP of the…”
NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
· cites it 3× “§ 1677b(f) (1994) makes clear that “the automatic recalculation of reported COP and CV data contemplated in 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 [ (1998) ] is not contemplated in the statute itself.”
SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 2000 CIT 105 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
· cites it 3× “For purposes of § 1677b(f)(3), regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 (b) (1998) provides that Commerce will value a major input supplied by an affiliated party based on the highest of (1) the actual transfer price for the input, (2) the market value of the input, or (3) the COP of the…”
Huvis Corp. v. United States, 570 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“” 19 C.F.R. 351.407(b). Thus, for the fifth period of review, as with each of the previous review periods, Commerce requested that Huvis submit three measures for its purchases of each grade of terephthalic acid made during the period of review: (1) the price Huvis paid to its…”
Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 86 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
· cites it 4× “at 20-21; See 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 (c). 11 Commerce differentiates TPBI’s cited authority from the present matter, stating that Commerce is not required to conduct a factor by factor analysis in this case, as there is only one product at issue.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.407(b) — 1 case
Huvis Corp. v. United States, 570 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“” 19 C.F.R. 351.407(b). Thus, for the fifth period of review, as with each of the previous review periods, Commerce requested that Huvis submit three measures for its purchases of each grade of terephthalic acid made during the period of review: (1) the price Huvis paid to its…”
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.407(b)(2) — 1 case
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.407(c) — 1 case
Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 86 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012).
“at 20-21; See 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 (c). 11 Commerce differentiates TPBI’s cited authority from the present matter, stating that Commerce is not required to conduct a factor by factor analysis in this case, as there is only one product at issue.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.